From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mark buffer_head mapping preallocate area as new during write_begin with delayed allocation
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:35:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49F75A9C.6000307@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090428185749.GA3275@skywalker>
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 01:00:47PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:05:54PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
...
>>>> The other problem seems to be in the case of a delayed allocation
>>>> write, where we return a buffer_head which is marked new, and this
>>>> causes block_prepare_write() to call unmap_underlying_metadata(dev, 0).
>>> Not just that. On block allocation we are not calling
>>> unmap_underlying_metadata(dev, blocknumber) for delayed allocated
>>> blocks. That would imply file corruption.
>> I don't think I'm following you . If we write into block that was
>> delayed allocated. Are you saying we might get in trouble of the
>> delayed allocation block is mmap'ed in?
>
> We allocate blocks for delayed buffer during writepage. Now we need to
> make sure after getting the blocks we drop the old buffer_head mapping
> that we may have with this particular block attached to the block
> device. That is done by calling unmap_underlying_metadata. Now the
> current code doesn't call unmap_underlying_metadata for delayed
> allocated blocks. That would mean we can see corrupt files if old
> buffer_head mapping gets synced to disk AFTER we write the new
> buffer_head mapping.
Talking w/ Aneesh on IRC, I don't see how we can have stray dirty
mappings lying around for this block device unless someone is writing
directly to the mounted block device, which I don't think is ever
considered safe ...
I'm not quite sure what the call to __unmap_underlying_blocks() in
mpage_da_map_blocks() is for, I guess?
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-28 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-27 19:05 [RFC PATCH] mark buffer_head mapping preallocate area as new during write_begin with delayed allocation Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-04-27 19:30 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-04-27 23:04 ` Mingming Cao
2009-04-28 3:03 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-04-28 4:20 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-04-28 9:31 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-04-28 12:48 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-28 16:35 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-04-28 17:00 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-28 18:57 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-04-28 19:35 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2009-04-29 11:57 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-29 14:08 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-04-29 18:13 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-29 1:38 ` Mingming
2009-04-28 16:37 ` Eric Sandeen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49F75A9C.6000307@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).